The ADS

[MadDogMurdock]

The ADS honk was objectively superior in time to resolve a system and, if it was brought back, using the ADS would make exploration objectively faster.

Any time there are any potentially competitive aspects to a game, there is significant pressure to use the most competitive mechanisms. Exploration data acquisition, where the rewards are credits, tags, reputation, and influence, in a multiplayer only game with a persistent, shared, setting, certainly qualifies.



Which is the non-choice I'm talking about.

If the ADS came back, the most optimal way to collect data would almost always involve a honk with the ADS, then selective scanning with the FSS.

Any time there is a best choice, in a competitive setting, it's virtually the same as no choice. That's why balance is so important when there are supposed to be options.

False supposition.
Even if the ADS was introduced the optimal approach to cherry picking by body type would be to use the FSS alone.

Even though what you suggest would be a method I would potentially make use of: Honk > Map > Target > Turn in SC > FSS > Zoom
It would be slower than the FSS alone: Honk > FSS > Tune > Pan > Zoom - in all cases except the odd planet off the orbital plane.
And the difference in scan rate only escalates for system discovery completionists.

And the competitive aspect of exploration is vastly overstated anyway - there is no shortage of undiscovered systems and never will be.

 

[Morbad]

Even though what you suggest would be a method I would potentially make use of: Honk > Map > Target > Turn in SC > FSS > Zoom

The turn in SC part wouldn't be required because the FSS can almost certainly be pointed faster. Targeting them would immediately reveal where where to point the FSS, without having to search with the FSS scope's narrow FoV. This could save a fair bit of time, even for on or near-plane scans.

And the competitive aspect of exploration is vastly overstated anyway - there is no shortage of undiscovered systems and never will be.

The main competitive aspect to exploration that I'm thinking of is BGS influence. The time investment vs. value of the data is what matters here.

 

[askavir]

that will we next weeks forum meta, which reminds me i really do need to update my bingo card although 1.5 years on its still not far off

I propose adding Arx in the place of "server problems".

 

[Old Duck]

If I'm after a certain quantity of data (to sell for profit or BGS purposes), or trying to find certain bodies, and both the ADS and FSS can be used on the same ship at the same time, there isn't going to be any method faster than the ADS honk (which takes the same time as the FSS one) followed by a quick glance at the system map, followed by selective scanning with the FSS.

I completely disagree. I can enter a system, quickly press Z,F (for me that's zero thrust, FSS), honk inside the FSS, and instantly see the histogram without even bothering with the system map.

The only place the ADS would give me a slight edge is if I'm in a system with 40+ "boring" planets and one ELW that I want to scan exclusively. Then I have to open the system map, select the ELW, then point my ship in that direction, and then open the FSS. This may be marginally faster than doing a quick 360 spin in the FSS, but it's definitely not going to win any BGS wars. If you care about game balance, then this is a strange windmill to be tilting at.

 

[babelfisch]

Which one is faster and which is the waste of time? You people keep using "objective" while making up things about tools you obviously don't even understand. It's like arguing with children over the existence of the tooth fairy.

That's because we are talking about a hypothetical situation that doesn't exist, of course I need to make things up.
You probably missed the point but are still arguing against it without knowing what it's about.
What I am saying is that in order to give people the choice to either use the ADS or the FSS you would need to allow both tools to perform the same actions, otherwise there would be no choice involved. If both tools had the same capabilities the ADS would be superior because it's instant rather than 45 clicks.
That's completely separate from the (actually good) suggestions to make a compromise, like using the ADS to discover the system map and the FSS for the detailed surface scan.

 

[Kenneth McGrew]

I propose adding Arx in the place of "server problems".

Prob time to remove DW2 too since its long passed now, but we haven't had an atmosphere thread for a while, i think its about time.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

The turn in SC part wouldn't be required because the FSS can almost certainly be pointed faster. Targeting them would immediately reveal where where to point the FSS, without having to search with the FSS scope's narrow FoV. This could save a fair bit of time, even for on or near-plane scans.



The main competitive aspect to exploration that I'm thinking of is BGS influence. The time investment vs. value of the data is what matters here.

Does selecting a target enable you to locate it quickly in the FSS view?
I'm not convinced that the FSS pays any attention to Nav Panel or System Map target selection, but I could be wrong.
Does it provide a big arrow or directional indication to an off screen selected target that is significantly more powerful than the body type indicator arrows?

But you are correct that FSS panning is significantly faster than SC turning, which is why the FSS alone would still be the meta for rapid system exploration even if the ADS was still in the game.

 

[Spaceman Si]

Unless taking the ADS excluded use of the FSS, the fastest way to scan would involve using both. There would be one "best" way to do things, which makes it not much of a choice.

There is already just one "best" way of doing things, because the only choice there is is to use the FSS.

And even if the ADS existed alongside the FSS, all it did was reveal the sysmap, it didn't grant the rewards and benefits that you used to have to get by flying and using the DSS, and is now granted by having to use the FSS. The ADS wouldn't be the "best" way, because you'd actually be wasting time charging and using it when you could be getting on with using the FSS to scan the bodies and get both the sysmap and the tags / materials in one go.

If the ADS just existed to reveal the sysmap and populate the target list with "unexplored" items, giving no credit reward whatsoever, it would still be useful to me and those that just want the sysmap. It isn't giving any monetary or time advantage over what the FSS does now.

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Imagine you had one weapon that would blow up ships instantly and one weapon which blows up a ship after you clicked 45 times.

Depends on what you were doing at the time the ship for blowing up appeared.

 

[Spaceman Si]

What I am saying is that in order to give people the choice to either use the ADS or the FSS you would need to allow both tools to perform the same actions, otherwise there would be no choice involved. If both tools had the same capabilities the ADS would be superior because it's instant rather than 45 clicks.

Why would you "need to allow both tools to perform the same actions"? They never did originally.

The ADS just listed targets and populated the sysmap.
The FSS lists signals which can be tuned into and then the object, tags, credits, and materials are granted.
Both give a certain amount of credits on honk.

So if a ship fitted just the ADS, they'd have to do what we used to in 3.2, i.e fly to the individual objects and scan them to get the details.
If a ship fitted just the FSS, then things are as they stand now.
Fitting both (if allowed) would give the compromise which I now know you know about

I just can't see your argument about why allowing either / or is a problem? Is it that you think there would then only be one of these tools available in the entire game? If so, that makes perfect sense, but it hasn't been obvious, I 'm afraid

I don't think anyone is demanding that the FSS is removed altogether... that would never happen, it's too important to bubble-level signal game play (which is what I am convinced it was really designed for)

 

[Morbad]

This may be marginally faster than doing a quick 360 spin in the FSS, but it's definitely not going to win any BGS wars. If you care about game balance, then this is a strange windmill to be tilting at.

Marginally faster is still faster.

I care about meaningful choices and balance stems from this. Reintroducing the ADS, without further changes, would not add much of any meaningful choices to the game. Whatever the most optimal mix of uses for the tools involved turns out to be, would quickly be discovered, and probably would not involve omitting one or the other.

Now if the ADS had enough mass to matter, or the FSS took up a slot, then there might be some real trade-offs.

Does selecting a target enable you to locate it quickly in the FSS view?

Yes, because the FSS is initially facing forward, so knowing where the target is in relation to your ship's facing (as revealed on sensor and compass display) lets you know where to point the FSS.

There is already just one "best" way of doing things, because the only choice there is is to use the FSS.

My argument isn't that the current system gives us much of any choice. It's that the reintroduction of the ADS wouldn't.

And even if the ADS existed alongside the FSS, all it did was reveal the sysmap, it didn't grant the rewards and benefits that you used to have to get by flying and using the DSS, and is now granted by having to use the FSS. The ADS wouldn't be the "best" way, because you'd actually be wasting time charging and using it when you could be getting on with using the FSS to scan the bodies and get both the sysmap and the tags / materials in one go.

Yes, if you are going to scan the entire system, then just using the FSS would be faster. I already mentioned that scenario.

If the ADS just existed to reveal the sysmap and populate the target list with "unexplored" items, giving no credit reward whatsoever, it would still be useful to me and those that just want the sysmap. It isn't giving any monetary or time advantage over what the FSS does now.

It's revealing the system map a lot faster.

In both of these scenarios, the non-choice is clear. You can either use the tool that does the job faster, or the one that doesn't.

 

[Burke]

I think the main difference is that the ADS makes you fly the FSS prevents you from flying. Yes?

 

[Spaceman Si]

It's revealing the system map a lot faster.

In both of these scenarios, the non-choice is clear. You can either use the tool that does the job faster, or the one that doesn't.

Revealing the sysmap doesn't give any material advantage though. The signal sources in the FSS already show if there are cherry-pickable objects available, if that is the perceived advantage. What those of us who want to see layout and structure would get is just that... which doesn't gain any credit or time advantage over anyone else in the same system, if that were ever a possibility! I can't imagine someone would think flying to an ELW to tag it would be quicker or more efficient than sitting in place and using the FSS to scan it at a distance, for example

Obviously one tool is going to be better / faster than another one for a particular job, but that is why we have different tools for different jobs, isn't it? At the moment, we don't have any choice on the tools we use.

 

[askavir]

Imagine you had one weapon that would blow up ships instantly and one weapon which blows up a ship after you clicked 45 times.

What you actually have is a weapon that takes down the shields instantly in a ship that still has a massive super-reinforced hull, vs another that completely obliterates the same ship in 45 shots from 500.000ls away and still scoops the mats it leaves after being destroyed.

You keep ignoring the fact that the ADS does not do nowhere near the stuff the FSS does, so they do not achieve the same things.

ADS used to give you planet locations and grant system discovery tag instantly, and nothing else.

FSS does require you to click 45 times, after which you have system discovery tag, every single star and planet discovery tag (assuming no one tagged them before), planetary surface detail scan credits (the ones you needed to use DSS in each planet before), existence or not of planetary POIs, and you even get the main star discovery tag just by arriving (not even the ADS did that).

Saying that using just the ADS to achieve the same result is faster is a fallacy, as with just the ADS you could never achieve the same result in the time you need to click 45 times in the FSS.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Marginally faster is still faster.

I care about meaningful choices and balance stems from this. Reintroducing the ADS, without further changes, would not add much of any meaningful choices to the game. Whatever the most optimal mix of uses for the tools involved turns out to be, would quickly be discovered, and probably would not involve omitting one or the other.

Now if the ADS had enough mass to matter, or the FSS took up a slot, then there might be some real trade-offs.



Yes, because the FSS is initially facing forward, so knowing where the target is in relation to your ship's facing (as revealed on sensor and compass display) lets you know where to point the FSS.



My argument isn't that the current system gives us much of any choice. It's that the reintroduction of the ADS wouldn't.



Yes, if you are going to scan the entire system, then just using the FSS would be faster. I already mentioned that scenario.



It's revealing the system map a lot faster.

In both of these scenarios, the non-choice is clear. You can either use the tool that does the job faster, or the one that doesn't.

Just the UI switching time would make it slower if you did select a target and use the compass to tell you which way to turn in the FSS.
The BGS effect of exploration is also going to be far more affected by completionists than cherry pickers by volume of scans.
Plus, ADS users would be more likely to leave a system behind without scanning it at all than FSS users.
Any kind of race to First Discovered will be far more affected by Jump Range than Scan Speed anyway. The extra weight of an ADS adds enough weight to tilt the balance in favour of those who don't carry one.

More than enough there to refute any suggestion that ADS use provides any material benefit over FSS alone.

 

[Morbad]

Obviously one tool is going to be better / faster than another one for a particular job, but that is why we have different tools for different jobs, isn't it? At the moment, we don't have any choice on the tools we use.

Reintroducing the ADS, without other changes, will just mean virtually every exploration or multipurpose vessel will have both. That's more inflation than choice.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Reintroducing the ADS, without other changes, will just mean virtually every exploration or multipurpose vessel will have both. That's more inflation than choice.

In this thread alone, there are those who apparently hate the ADS enough to never fit one - or so they say

But more modules only seems to be a bad thing for exploration apparently.

Moar guns!!
Moar armor!!
Moar shielding!!
Moar mining tools!!

and so on.

 

[Spaceman Si]

Reintroducing the ADS, without other changes, will just mean virtually every exploration or multipurpose vessel will have both. That's more inflation than choice.

Perhaps, but they would then have the option to do that, which is the point for me. I think a similar argument could be made against engineering, in that all it really is is inflation. I haven't seen too many people say they don't engineer anything, for example However, the choice is there to engineer or not, if one wishes.

I just think it would be nice to have that choice, and return the option of the game-play that I enjoyed from 3.2 (flying to unexplored objects to scan them)

 

[askavir]

I think the main difference is that the ADS makes you fly the FSS prevents you from flying. Yes?

I'd say that on top of that, if completely shifted the focus of flying through a star system to from celestial objects to POIs, but the amount of distinct types of POIs is miniscule, making the whole thing feel devoid of purpose unless you particularly enjoy uncovering the system map.

Shifting the focus to POIs might not have been a terrible thing, but it had to be a much larger number of completely different POI types, or at least as much bigger diversity of same-type POIs (maybe through some degree of procedural generation). Also, there would have to be a larger number of things to do within the system and planets.

Like I said, I wouldn't mind having to use the FSS if aftewards there was potentiallly hours of gameplay in that system. Right now, one uses the FSS mostly to jump to the next system and use the FSS again, making it a self-contained neverending loop, which is awesome if you like it, but terrible if you don't.

 

[Morbad]

Just the UI switching time would make it slower if you did select a target and use the compass to tell you which way to turn in the FSS.

Not on any system that gets more than about 30 fps.

The extra weight of an ADS adds enough weight to tilt the balance in favour of those who don't carry one.

It was two tons. That barely puts a dent in the proportion of accessible systems for most ships.

In this thread alone, there are those who apparently hate the ADS enough to never fit one - or so they say

I strongly dislike the ADS, but I always took one for exploration, and were it reintroduced, I'd take it on any ship I built for the purpose of exploring and most of my multi-purpose vessels...because it would add significant utility with virtually no trade offs for those vessels.